User talk:Mike

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive from: mid -04


Post a message • skriv ett meddelande
Send mail • skicka ett mail


Tack for ramming the site full of Swedish. You're doing what I do for French. And the format for idioms is fine by me. Another thing, I noticed that ur pages have appeared twice in RC. This happens sometimes when, after u save a page, it doesnt appear straight away. But it sometimes takes a bit of time to appear. So normally theres no need to press "save" twice--Wonderfool 10:42, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's a problem of mine: I usually use the "preview", just to note - when I finally hit save - that I overlooked a few things anyway. So I try to stop it and go back; sometimes I'm quick enough, sometimes I'm not...

But thanks anyway; it's reassuring to realize that *someone* does care about such a minor language as Swedish too, and that I haven't been working for nothing :-) \Mike 10:51, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What would be cool is to build on the Category:Phrasebook with Swedish stuff. I'm gonna be in Sweden in the summer, and if I can't be bothered to buy a phrasebook, it'll be cool to learn basic stuff for the trip. Plus, 2of my best mades are a Finn and a Swede, and it vexes me when they talk in Swedish. Ta--Wonderfool 10:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, I don't have that much time at the moment, so I won't make any promises right now to complete it :< But I suppose I'll manage something. BTW, I didn't see that category before - seems to be really useful. However, I supppose we should split this category by language as we've done with most other similar cat's - I believe I'll add Swedish phrases to Category:Swedish phrasebook. \Mike 11:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Dude, I love you! If I could make a "doing a lazy Brit a favour" barnstar, u would get one. Thanks for the phrasebook --Wonderfool 16:01, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You're welcome, it was actually less work than I expected :) Just sorry that I don't know the phonetics - so I can't give you any pronunciation guide... \Mike 16:10, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Congratulations on entering the 60,000th entry! — Paul G 12:35, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you =) \M


I like you. And would like to vote you for sysop. What say you? -- (wonderfool, signature added by \M)

Hm, what should I say 'bout that... well, it's not like I'm dying to become a sysop here too, but I'm properly flattered that you wanna trust me with those tools :) ... Oh well. I guess every hand could be useful when it comes to stopping mr AP ( :/ ), and I do lurk on IRC quite alot, sometimes (it seems) at slightly odd hours too... \Mike 12:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sorry WF, I beat you to the punch (inadvertently.) Mike, please indicate your acceptance or rejection on Wiktionary:Administrators. --Connel MacKenzie 09:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Hello, Mike. I could enjoy acquaintance with another resident of Sweden. The first was a man from Dalarna with whom I cooperared in some regional categories on

Anyway, I've noticed some use of an adjective "Maorian" where most of us New Zealanders would use "Maori", a word that started life as an adjective many centuries ago. I've queried it on one Talk page related to it here today, and I thought I might track down the people who have been using it to see if any of them might be upset at my proposal to replace it by "Maori". It seems you wrote it here:

I would like you to give me your thoughts and feelings about it, and maybe tell me where you first read it, in case it turns out to be a legitimate word that we should use.

Robin Patterson 04:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Robin, I'm very much sorry if I've used the wrong term. I no longer remember where I saw the word Maorian, and I will correct it immediately. \Mike 02:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Mike, if I could find a Wikt Barnstar I'd award you one. Now I'll resume crossreferencing this Wikt with mi:. Robin Patterson 04:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Mike, Congratulations on entry number 75,000 and thanks for all the great work you've done to get us there. Födelsedagskalas seems like a particularly fitting entry for a milestone like this. --Dvortygirl 22:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Swedish text[edit]

I got this text some while ago, from a Swede. What does he say? I think its rude.

Gå hem och sätt på din katt eller nåt.

My guess is "Go home and ??? your ??? all night".

Tack, --Wonderfool

Yes, that's really rude. It means "Go home and fcuk your cat or something". \Mike 08:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Cats are getting everywhere into my life these days! Maybe I'll create an entry with that phrase in one day --Wonderfool
Well, I don't think we can have entries for each and every possible phrase, no matter how catchy it is. Sure, the phrase sätta på needs a def, however not today... (at least not by me, I haven't time right now.) \M


This is to let you know that you are now an administrator. I look forward to your continued level handed approach to Wiktionary matters. Eclecticology June 30, 2005 17:10 (UTC)

Help clean up junk[edit]

Mike, The entry niggerelsker looks like junk to me, but it's not in English. Is it anything you can read? It was created by the same anon and on the same day as svarting, so I'm guessing it is also offensive. Thank you for being our expert in that corner of the world. --Dvortygirl 00:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

As I said, I'll take it out. \Mike 07:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

pagename macro[edit]

Hi Mike,

Putting a {{pagename}} macro as the example under the POS header is not useful. I use these examples in the bot I'm creating to check whether an entry is under the right title. If it states pagename, then there is nothing to check. Also when an entry would travel beyond the context of Wiktionary it is still clear which word is being described. Polyglot 07:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't really my idea...[edit]

Hi Mike,

You're welcome. It wasn't really my idea though. I saw somebody else do it and then I kind of remembered they were doing something like that on Wikipedia. They do it in a way that's a lot more structured though. I just went over there to get the colors consistent. Anyway, I kind of liked to have my user page a bit more informative and colorful... Cheers and glad I inspired some people. Polyglot 22:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


I understand what your saying. I guess, to generate the correct attestation, I would need to be able to reach a broad audience and convey the word to them. Much like how the rapper Lil' John created the fictional word "Krunk" that is now in common use within the urban community. From what I'm getting from you, even though the definition and creation of my word makes sense, due to the fact that I do not have the status or means to pass it on to broader audience it is not an applicable word nor do I have the attestation of proof that the word is in use....correct? My question is this, how do you explain "Wiktionary" as being a word? I am not aware that this word has the confirmation of proof that it is a wildy used word, and futhormore "precieved" as a word. "Wikipedia" would fall into the same catagory as well, wouldn't it? rm81dragon 12:57, 15 September 2005 (EDT)


Why did you hide my addition of "yastreb" to the word hawk entry?

You can put Cyrillic in parenthesis, this is the ENGLISH version of Wiktionary, NOT the Russian version, the Russian spelling for hawk in English IS YASTREB. The Cyrillic is: "ястреб" (or "торговать вразнос") but a person speaking English CAN'T pronounce that, they can pronounce YASTREB.

Go back to hawk and look at the:

  • Bosnian: "jastreb"
  • Polish: "jastrząb"
  • Slovene: "jastreb"

See the similarity?

Look at:

  • Icelandic: "haukur"

Do you see that in Cyrillic? NO

WikiDon 21:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I don't question the authenticity of "yastreb" as the English transliteration. I do question however, whether it is correct to write a Russsian word in Latin letters. So far, the standard have been to write every Russian entry in Cyrillic - both as the headword and the translation, just as a user is adding both the Cyrillic and Latin versions of Serbian words. If you look at just about any Greek entry, you'll see that the headword is in Greek characters. All translations to Greek are in Greek characters - possibly with a transliteration in parenthesis. Same for the CJK characters. And Arabic, and Thai, and Hebrew, and so on. And not only do I think we should keep working this way because it is standard, but also because:
  • One of the main uses I have of a dictionary is actually to look up say a Swedish word to see which English word I can use as a translation of that Swedish one. I assume the same is true for English speaking folks who are writing something in Russian - hence, it makes much more sense for me to give the correct spelling in Cyrillic, than a transliteration which leaves the user in a state, where s/he has to guess the Cyrillic spelling. Yes, I know that Russian is supposed to be much more simple to spell than English is, but are there absolutely never any exceptions? Never any ambiguity in spelling, given only a transliteration? I'd be very much surprised, indeed.
  • How do you expect us to link to the Cyrillic headword if the user needs more information? Piped links every time? If they "CAN'T pronounce [the word in Russian characters]", how on earth should they then be able to read the headword? How do they know they've come to the right place? Or should headwords ALSO be transliterated? Then wiktionary would be utterly useless for anyone who needs to look up the definition of a Russian word (met in RL, i.e. written in Cyrillic) if s/he cannot figure out the rules for transliterations into English!
And finally, I fail to understand why you drag the Icelandic translation into this. Icelandic is not, and have never been, (officially) written in Cyrillic. What's the point?
Regards, \Mike
P.S. Thanks for the corrected spelling of ястреб. I'll add that, together with "yastreb" as the transliteration, unless this has already been done.
P.P.S. Another user seems to disagree with you upon how ястреб should be transliterated...
This make no sense. Now yastreb is nowhere to be found. If a person comes across the word 19,000 hits on Yahoo! Google 13,800 hits, then comes here for a definition, they might be confused.
If they see the word in an article, then come to Wiktionary, and put it in the search field, type it in, they get ястреб, which may confuse them. They may think that they typed it in wrong.
Don't Russian most people already know what the word means? Shouldn't they go to the Russain edition of Wiktionary to type in ястреб? Whouldn't they go there anyway, and not to the en.* one? I haven't spent much time around these parts and don't know the rules. But it just seems that since this is the English dictionary. People will read articles in English that have the word yastreb in it, but it is doubtful that they will every see ястреб, unless they are reading Russian articles or are in Russia.
I came across the word Yastreb because I am a shareholder in ExxonMobil and in the information they have sent to me, they have a drilling rig, run by Parker Drilling, on Sakhalin Island. See what I have written about the rig here: Yastreb. But, then I notice that the Russain people name hundreds of items Yastreb, any time they want something "big" and/or "tough", like everybody does with any tough animal. Jaguar (the car), Eagle (car), Mustang (car), etc.
I noticed that the Russians use the word in their space program, for a suit and a craft; a class of Russian GP frigates, a militray aircraft, and even a line of furniture "Ястреб АС".
As for Ястреб being Yastreb being hawk, you can look all over the Internet and find that. Russian dictionaries, websites (check the funiture company link above) and this Russian website article on the aformentioned rig Сахалин-1 (Sakhalin-I), and even Wikipedia: Vostok 5 (added by someone other than me). So I don't know what they might be talking about.
Wiktionary already has their rules setup, so do what you will, I was just trying to help out the English reader if they came across the word YASTREB.
Good luck.
WikiDon 07:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

(fixed indentations and one link) Now, I think we have two issues going on here. 'Should the translation of the English word "hawk" into Russian be spellt in Latin or Cyrillic characters', and 'should Wiktionary feature an article about the transliteration "yastreb"?' Your first message was obviously about the article "hawk", your second... I'm not even sure you're clear on that point yourself, are you?
Based on that, I'm not sure you understood what I was talking about, did you? What I assumed you knew, was that the task of every language version of wiktionary (including en:) is to describe "all words in all languages". Including Russian words. Now, it is an interesting question whether a name of a space suit, a drilling rig or even furniture, which is used in an English text, with letters usually associated with the English language (NOT the Russian ones); but derived from the Russian word "Ястреб" actually is a Russian word or a English word? Or, in other words, does the scope of wiktionary include all possible transliterations of Cyrillic/Arabic/Chinese... words? I don't know, and frankly I don't really care very much about that. Perhaps you have a point there, that common transliterations should be included. But I do care about the fact that if we claim to give the Russian translation, then it should be with Russian spelling, and with Russian letters. Anything else is ... bogus, I'd say.
And again, as I said first in my previous post, I do not dispute the transliteration "yastreb" - what I do dispute is that this would be the correct Russian spelling. (Someone else does indeed dispute the transliteration, but that's another story which I will not enter. I could just point out that there are about 3 times as many google hits for "jastreb" compared to "yastreb". The difference increases to almost 11 times if you restrict your search to pages in English, which I think makes sense since different languages transliterate in different ways.)
Finally, the only connection between the furniture manifacturer and the term "yastreb" I can find is that the word "yastreb" is included in their URL, and that they sell some furniture called ястреб. I'm sorry, but what does that prove? That "yastreb" is a word in the Russian language? I happen know about a site called "" - an English language site - but does that prove that the English entry flickr is needed?
But to respond to (almost) all your statements, (and here I assume, everywhere but for the first two points, that you are still talking about the translation given in the article hawk, and not the pages ястреб/yastreb. Please correct me if I'm wrong):
  • "Now yastreb is nowhere to be found". - Wrong. It is still a redirect to the correct spelling. By entering "yastreb" in the search box, you're taken to the page "ястреб", with a message in the upper left corner that you've been redirected from the page yastreb. You are however welcome to change that redirect into something which tells the reader that it is one possible transliteration of ястреб.
  • "They may think that they typed it in wrong". - How on earth do you mistakenly write in Cyrillic instead of Latin? But, as pointed out above, you could change it to say that it is a transliteration. And confused? Pardon me, I thought most English speakers knew that Russian uses a different alphabet... Perhaps I was assuming too much there...
  • "Don't Russian most people already know what the word means?..." - Strangely, although I don't speak English natively, I actually prefer to use dictionaries where the definitions are in English. Then I can compare the definitions of a Swedish and an English word, to see what the differences are. OR to use dictionaries where I can get both definitions in Swedish. This is because by comparing definitions given in different languages, extra uncertainties are introduced as I have to translate one of the definitions. In short, I'm more confident that a certain sv-word and a certain en-word can be adequately translated into each other if I have both definitions in one language. In particular, I'm more confident there are no secondary meanings to make things ambigious. About your question, I'm not certain I understand it completely. Which word? ястреб or yastreb? Do you think it's superfluous in ru: or in en:?
  • "Shouldn't they go to the Russain [sic] edition of Wiktionary to type in ястреб?" - The Russians? Perhaps, perhaps not (see last answer). But what I was talking about, if you look back, was "English speaking folks who are writing [or reading] something in Russian". Do you think they absolutely have to read ru:ястреб to get all possible information about that word? Or if it is encountered in a text, do you think they should have to begin by guessing the transliteration? I'd rather not.
  • "People will read articles in English that have the word yastreb in it." - That doesn't make it Russian. Actually, the more I think of it, the more I'd say it is English. In particular, if you claim it to be so common throughout the net so that ppl will stumble upon it every now and then.
  • "I came across the word Yastreb...." - Of course. As reading English texts, you can come across a lot of foreign words. Some are correctly spellt, some transliterated, some best described as "mangled". So what? (Note: This does NOT mean I claim to know in which of these categories the form "yastreb" belongs.)
  • "As for Ястреб being Yastreb being hawk..." - Where did I ever dispute that? (short of possibly the spelling of the transliteration).
  • "So I don't know what they might be talking about" - What do you mean by that? Don't you understand the wikipedia articles you mentioned because you could not find the literal translation of the name of the space suit/drilling rig/battleship/etc.? Because I am completely at a loss to explin how your understanding of the Russian sites you mentioned (which does not transliterate anything) could possibly be harmed as en:wikt at the moment is failing to include an article about a specific transliteration...
Ok, sorry for the length of this, but I'm not inclined to take further time to shorten it at the moment. It's taken me too long already:/
Regards, \Mike

Swedish & "disambiguation see also"[edit]

Hi Mike. Thanks for noticing the disambig see also links I've been adding for Swedish and improving them / creating articles. I've just been reading Como agua para chocolate in Spanish and using Kärlek het som chili as a backup. I just happened to find a Swedish copy used here in Mexico where there are some Swedes milling about. Nice language! — Hippietrail 15:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is, isn't it :) \Mike 15:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh, here's a couple more that spellings that exist in Swedish and at least one other language I know but don't have entries in one or both yet: sägs, kärt, ända, sas, hörde, lära, höra, hörnet, sånt, söt. — Hippietrail 20:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I was working on säga right now (cleanup and such, including a seealso to both saga and såga) when I realized how much I did like the possibility to write - as a parameter to the template - ..|link1]] [[link2|.. - when I normally would have written |link| to get a link out of that parameter; in order to get two links. I don't know if anyone have dealt with the guilty developer accordingly, but do you know any workaround? (short of copying the whole template/creating a new template)... Besides, I'm afraid I've used that way of writing before, so there might be some articles to cleanup... (somewhere!) \Mike 16:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Firstly I really hate the name of the template. It's bad enough we have two kinds of "see also", it's worse to give a template a 3-letter name. But that aside, for other sets of templates which can take varying numbers of arguments, people have created temp, temp2, temp3, temp4, etc. Where the number represents the number of arguments. Or something very similar, you might want to have a look first. — Hippietrail 16:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, it was not really about the "seealso-template" but rather the template for the verb conjugations I had in mind. (That seealso-template probably should have another name, true, what d'you want to call it?) Back to the conjugations template... I just hope that I won't find any large number of words whith alternative spellings in, say, two tenses - if there's only two alternatives for each, and they can occur independently, we get at least 20 different templates (+ the five where only one tense should have a double entry, and the "original"...)... yuck. But, I'd need to check it up. Hopefully they are rare enough to allow one to paste a modified template into each of the affected articles. \Mike 16:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for not replying, I managed to miss your answer! On the "See" template, I think it's main job is disambiguation, but there are probably a few near-synonyms that don't pop into my head right now. On this basis I suggest "disambig" as a template name but I'm sure there are other good ones. "see" is not one ):
On the verb conjugation templates I don't have much to say right now but you can be sure I'll say something if I ever spot any ugly gotchas (: — Hippietrail 01:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
No problems, I'm not very active at the moment myself... I doubt I'll do (a lot of) new errors in the verbconjugations tables, but I suppose there are a few already present... somewhere. Concerning the "Disambig"/"See" template, perhaps it may as well be retired... \Mike 08:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Four dashes[edit]

Hi, I removed your "vote" about the four dashes at the beer parlour. This list was only my interpretation of what people were thinking. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Gerard Foley 21:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Weights and measures[edit]

Hi Mike,

I see you've put in a lot of weights and measurse in Swedish.

The idea of the foreign-language sections in the appendix is to include English words for of weights and measures used in foreign countries (for example, the Chinese catty and li) rather than to include foreign words for weights and measures already in the appendix (eg, French "mètre" and Italian "metro"). Could you possibly move this material to Wiktionary Appendix:Weights and measures:Swedish, which would be a more appropriate place for it? Thanks. — Paul G 18:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I moved the sv:-stuff to the place you suggested. I don't know the English translations of (most of) those words, but I'll leave them commented-out at the English page. \Mike 08:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Swedish inflection tables[edit]

Hi Mike. I see you removed a bunch of Swedish words form the requests page. I didn't notice if it was you who created the articles too but it seems most if not all of them have very poor rendering of their inflection tables in my browser. Some are too high. Some are compressed over in one side of the screen. Maybe you can have a look at this in Internet Explorer. — Hippietrail 18:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, gosh... No, I'm the one to blame. Yes, I added the words, and the tables (and yes, I realize I shouldn't have removed them from the list). Yes, I constructed these tables in the first place. And no, I didn't double check them in IE. But I still didn't notice any problems until I squeezed the window a fair bit, so perhaps my screen is simply too wide... I had hoped that the Swedish inflection tables would remain small enough to remain in the article, and even use the - imo pretty empty - right-hand side of the screen to put them. And as nobody complained until now ... :/ But obviously, I cannot trust what looks ok on this screen to look ok on other screens.
This makes me wonder how to deal with the inflection tables. I know de: and fr: (at least) puts a shortened version on the article page, and puts the main table on a subpage. And the tables of those languages needs a subpage, to get rid of neverending pages such as aimer (and it would of course be even worse if there were a German word of that spelling as well). The question is if one should 1) redo the tables to fit a smaller screen 2) move them back to a header of their own or 3) move it all to a new subpage. I would guess, though, that the verb table is the least problematic of the three? (verb, adjective and noun is what I've done). \Mike 13:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Removing the words from the list after creating the articles was the right thing to do. I only mentioned that because it's how I found the new articles. For now I would move the inflections down the article to a level-3 heading. Keep thinking about solutions though. This is the kind of thing we need to standardize some day. — Hippietrail 16:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Firstly, I guess I'll have to redo a bunch of formatting changes I've done over the last month or so... Secondly, to be honest, I'm not certain if I consider it to be any point in developing a lot of new standards now as UW is getting closer (or at least I hope it is?) - until I know what limits/possibilities that software implies for the layout of the articles. \Mike 18:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Fund drive translations[edit]

Could you please add sv? --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Weird, it's there, but not on Oh well. --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I added the message to sv:MediaWiki:Sitenotice \Mike 13:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Audio done[edit]

Please find audio for determine and determined, and don't hesitate to ask for more. All the words here need audio, eventually. --Dvortygirl 06:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. As the English I hear in everyday life are various kinds of more or less heavy accented Englishes, I've heard a few (very!) different pronunciations of these words... \Mike 13:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Noticed your Amgine support[edit]

Really curious; how does someone ignore his misbehaviour. Do you simply not look at it ? not think its true ? or figure his good points outweigh any type of misbehaviour ? I mean, to me, it would be like encouraging a school board to hire a convicted child molester to teach 2nd. graders because you think he's a good teacher and just ignoring the fact of the conviction; so I do you do it? What is the actual mental process that leads you to support him and simply ignore his history of conflict and administrative abuse? Methodology 19:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you really think I have a need to motivate my opinions to you? Sorry, but I don't. \Mike 20:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Question from user page:[edit]



Mike, Why you deleted description of word


. It was very relevant info. Please put it back. Thank you. \--Lolalol

As I wrote when I deleted it, the text was "encyclopedic", i.e. more suitable for an encyclopedia such as wikipedia, than for a dictionary. But first a fair warning: is this term in common use? I mean, the first 20 google hits are all about one single artist trying to promote this new word! Unless you can come up with some hard evidence, it is going to be deleted there as well, as wikipedia is not (nor is wiktionary) a platform for advertising of any kind...
Now, if you want it mentioned here, I think the best you can do is to add it to Appendix:List of protologisms - there it has a much better chance to last than as a article of its own. Please see also Wiktionary:Protologisms.

Regards, \Mike 07:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Mike, It would be nice if you did it. Best, Lolalol

10 000-metersklubben[edit]

Does 10 000-metersklubben work in Swedish? Cos on Wikipedia it looks like it#s being Put up for deletion --Wonderfool 15:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The w:sv:10 000-metersklubben article isn't up for deletion, but there is dispute about the facts in the article… Jon Harald Søby 15:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the term exist, but as Jhs says, the sv.wp article contains a disputed statement - that it would suffice to have been on heights over 10 000 meter (which is actually almost 7 miles, btw), without any reference to any particular actions while being there... ;) \Mike 16:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


Hi Mike. I'm pretty sure I found this word in Kärlek het som chili by Laura Esquivel but maybe in På drift by Jack Kerouac. I noticed it because it has a similar spelling to the Spanish word for garlic. I'll see if I can locate it in the book, check if I made a mistake, and provide a citation if it's correct. — Hippietrail 15:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hm, that's interesting. In a sense, it's logical since that spelling would correspond much better to the actual pronunciation, than does the traditional... Please let me know if you find anything :) \Mike 12:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I found the word, in chapter 3 of På drift by Jack Kerouac, and not in quoted speech. My Swedish is way too poor to guess if it's used as an alternative spelling of adjö but hopefully you can do something with it now. I made a citation page: ajö/Citations. — Hippietrail 15:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, it doesn't seem to be written in any overly informal manner, so I guess we should accept it as a spelling variant... (have even found it in a dictionary now :) \Mike 15:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Cool. In the meantime I've done a terrible translation of the passage into English. Could you help me out with it if it's not too much trouble?
I took "bagen", said goodbye to the old landlord who sat wide his "spottlåda" and went and ate.
Oh but here's the original English:
I picked up my bag, said so long to the old hotelkeeper sitting by his spittoon, and went to eat.
It makes me think our articles for till and vid might not be good enough. — Hippietrail 16:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, a few issues...
  • "Picked up" would more litterally be "plockade upp" or "tog upp", but simply "tog" is ok too. (Gives more the sense of "brought", though)
  • The Swedish "bag" (at least today) denotes a large bag, compare this image. The situation in the '50s, when this was written (the translation too?) I know nothing about... Interesting that they left out "my" in the translation....
  • "Värd" is closer to landlord (can also mean host); have to think about what "hotelkeeper" would be more litterally...
  • I've never heard the word spottlåda; though I'm aware of a word spottkopp which fits nicely with the definition of spittoon. I'd guess "spottlåda" would be something larger... (låda = box) But I wouldn't know for sure... and my dictionary doesn't help me either.
  • "went to eat" could be translated either as "gick för att äta" (went with the intention to eat (when arrived)), or "gick och åt" (first went somewhere, then ate). The latter is though slightly ambigious; sometimes it's used as an abbreviation of "gick och åt samtidigt" = "walked and ate at the same time", but I don't think that applies here.
  • Doesn't "so long" imply some informality? Perhaps that's why they chose the nonstandard spelling "ajö" as the translation.
And I agree more work really is needed in the prepositions... (yuck ;) \Mike 16:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for slowness[edit]

Sorry I didn't get the AOL range pegged sooner. If you want help cleaning, tell me where, otherwise I'll get myself de-admined. - Amgine/talk 00:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No problems, I'm working on it... \Mike 00:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


Is there an English equivalent of the Swedish term? Does it just mean "cone"? — Paul G 12:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

None I've heard of. I've updated (clarified) the entry, perhaps that helps in finding a good English translation? \Mike 18:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The extra parameter in Template:sv-verb-reg-er[edit]

It is didn't work out quite as you expected did it? I don't think there any word that can use the extra parameter. You have to use Template:sv-verb-irreg. "Men man kan ju alltid drömma." :-)

BTW, I started using Template:~if in Template:sv-verb-irreg. The verb rädas doesn't seem to have any present participle. --Patrik Stridvall 22:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to revert myself there... I finally realized that the spelling required the "irregular"-template, but then I had forgotten the change I made in the template... \Mike 16:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Invitation to contribute[edit]


(Mike - please excuse the impersonal message: this is going out to loads of people. I know you do tons of work here already so feel free to say no if this is more than you are willing to take on.)

You might or might not already be aware that there is now a new system in place for marking translations that need to be checked (those that are suspected of being incorrect or those where it is not clear which sense(s) of a word the translations apply to). (See here for the Beer parlour discussion on this topic.)

Translations to be checked are now categorised by language. For example, Category:Translations_to_be_checked_(French) contains a list of all words where French translations need to be checked. This is designed to make the checking of these translations easier to maintain and work with.

I'm contacting everyone who has expressed an interest in working on translations or has indicated in Wiktionary:Babel that they have a good knowledge of a particular foreign language or languages.

Would you be interested in helping out with the translations to be checked for Swedish? If so, please read the page on how to check translations.

If you want to reply to this message, please do so on my talk page. Thanks for your help you can provide.

Paul G 08:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. Well, I've already found the category and have started working on it, and I'll continue to do as much as I have time to do. \Mike 10:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I thought you probably had already seen it. Thanks. — Paul G 10:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

liten and smärre[edit]

SAOL lists the word smärre as inflection of små, but you are right, it is not listed as an inflection of liten eventhough små is. Hmm, I usually say smärre in the plural especially if the plural is not marked like in "ett mindre fel" and "några smärre fel".

BTW, nice solution to the big box. Not sure if I like the color, but I don't care that much... But can really the superlative predicative indefinite exist? Do you have any example of such a sentence? --Patrik Stridvall 17:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

When Sanna and I discussed this yesterday, we seemed to agree that smärre mainly remains in ... I think she called it "absolute comparative". I definitely don't consider it more of a "plural" form than mindre is, I certainly would say "de mindre bilarna", and not use "de smärre bilarna". When it comes to "superlative predicative indefinite", I would wage that "det är en pojke som är minst av barnen" would qualify. Or do you think I'm mistaken there? \Mike 15:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
"smärre" is mostly used for the neuter words that is the same in plural. Saying "De smärre bilarna" is correct but unusual. The plural forms of adjectives and verbs have mostly disappeared from modern Swedish.
The fact that "en pojke" is indefinite doesn't make "minst" indefinite. Try translating the sentence to English "There is a boy that is the smallest one". --Patrik Stridvall 16:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Would you use "smärre" as in "de smärre husen"? I certainly wouldn't... When it comes to the example, your translation would more adequately be translated back to Swedish as "det är en pojke som är den minsta (av barnen)". Is that quite the same? \Mike 16:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I primarily use it for the words "fel" och "problem" mostly in the "indefinite plural". Using it in the "definite plural" is more unusual but not incorrect.
English doesn't really make a distinct between the two cases like Swedish do. Actually I don't think there are any difference in meaning between the Swedish sentences at all. It just the difference between having an adjective with an implict noun and having a standalone adjective.
The objection is more on esteticial grounds. The box would look nicer if that possibillity was removed. --Patrik Stridvall 17:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
smärre Its current usage is equivalent of english minor as in a minor problem, that is while it is originally derived from a comparative of små, it is no longer used as productive inflection of små but is rather a frozen form, quite similar to the usage of äldre as an absolutive comparative with the sense of elderly rather than older, but with the difference that afaik only the absolutive usage persists. If anyone disagree, please provide a valid Swedish example where it is used to actually compare two different objects?
Hmm. No, I can't remember ever seeing it used in comparisions. I certainly wouldn't use it in such a way. --Patrik Stridvall 18:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
superlative predicative indefinite en pojke är minst, yes the translation into English would be something like one boy is the smallest one, but the grammatical structure of a translated sentence gives very little clue to the structure of the original sentence. The translation is not a predicative usage, but an attributive. And well, estetic considerations must really be considered extremely secondary to presenting the relevant data. Would you please give an alternative way to present the form used in vilken flicka är minst?--sanna 18:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
In English there is no grammatical distinction between attributive and predicative so obviously you can't know. You can write it vilken är den minsta flickan. The point is you can always transform a predicative use in a sentence to an attribute use that means exactly the same thing. Since the meaning doesn't change obviously indefinite can't change to definitive or vice versa. --Patrik Stridvall 18:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course you can use another grammatical structure, but I still do nou understand how you wish to present the fact that the form changes. --sanna 19:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
You can change the from superlative predicative definite to superlative attributive definite or vice versa. But there is no such thing as superlative predicative indefinite so it is not possible to change to that form... The inflection box is wrong as well as it looks ugly. --Patrik Stridvall 19:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Now you're arguing in circles... \Mike 20:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what I can answer to that. I think I have been as clear as I can be. An indefinite superlative doesn't make much logical sense and even if it did Swedish doesn't have the expressive power to make that distinction. I doubt any language have, since it would be an largely pointless distinction. Why make the inflection box ugly for no good reason? --Patrik Stridvall 21:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Patrik, in your opinion, what form is minst in en pojke är minst? Or do you not consider that to be a valid sentence? --sanna 21:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
It's is superlative predicative definite. Of course it is a valid sentence. It just short for en av pojkarna är den minsta pojken. The fact that you do a subselection doesn't make minst indefinite. The indefinite form of pojke marks the subselection nothing else. There is still a definite pojke (pojken) that is minst. --Patrik Stridvall 21:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I see where you are going with the subselection argument, but the possible semantic definiteness of the boy in question aside, the fact remains that it is syntactically marked as an indefinite. And syntactic structure have a tendency to follow syntactic markings rather than semantic such, not exceptionlessly but still a strong tendency. That said, the crucial point is imo that there is no inflection of the superlative when used as predicative, imo very clearly so. I am not really clear on if what you are proposing is to cut the predicative usage from the table completely, or if you wish for it to be restricted to the definite rows? In this latter where is the esthetic difference? Anyway, I think I need to sleep on the matter.--sanna 23:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
What mark? Neither the comparative nor the superlative have any marks for definiteness. The only different forms is the attributive and the predicative in the superlative. The question is whether the superlative can teoretically exists in the indefinite like the comparative can. Of course the comparative in Swedish is not marked for definiteness either but there is such a distinction. Compare Jag vill ha den lilla/mindre with Jag vill ha en liten/mindre. If you are talking about something that is superlative you have always clearly defined what you mean so there is no meaningful choice that anybody else can make that fullfills the criteria no matter whether you attribute or predict. So you can either say that the superlative is always definite, as I prefer to do, or that the question of definiteness is irrelevant. However, saying that the superlative can be indefinite makes no sense at all. Note that in English some people drop the definite article before the superlative since it doesn't really add anything to the meaning. It is not considered "correct" English though...
In short, what I want is the predicative column to look like the attributive column since the superlative can't be indefinite. ---Patrik Stridvall 19:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Svensk sång (Swedish song)[edit]

I've been listening to this song that's 80% in Swedish and 20% in English, and the recurring line in it is something like "stormienska to Buddy Holly". What does stormienska mean? I thought maybe it was stor mienska, or stor mi enska. But i dunno. Can you fathom a guess as to what the singer is saying? I dunno offhand who the singer/band is. --Expurgator t(c) 23:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

At the moment I have no idea what it should mean - there's no such word, for sure, and I don't see right now which word it should be instead... I'll have to think about it. \Mike 09:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
It looks like "stor människa" which means "big/large/great human" depending on context. It doesn't really fit in the context above unless the sentence should be "en stor människa var Buddy Holly" ("a great human was Buddy Holly") which would make sense.. --Patrik Stridvall 09:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds like what the guy is singing. Cheers Swedes. And Buddy Holly was not a particularly large man, so I'll presume it means "great man". Tack so mycket! --Expurgator t(c) 12:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


Not on this project anymore. He reduced himself to sysop a while ago. Should we reflect that in our list? — Vildricianus 15:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


Could you please see if there is anything useful we can taken from w:Handelshögskola? If not, its not so important. --Dangherous 14:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've salvaged what I could (minus some of the speling *grin*), and added a bit... \Mike 15:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
You beat me to it. I got a edit conflict. :-) Anyway, I have added a few tweaks from my version. --Patrik Stridvall 15:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Heh, that's the Wiki Way :) \Mike 17:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


Good day. You have been nominated (a while ago) to have checkuser rights. Do you show any interest? — Vildricianus 14:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Months and Days[edit]

Hi, Mike. Would you mind having a look at the Appendices for Appendix:Months of the Year and Appendix:Days of the Week and be sure that both pages include the appropriate SV entries? Also, some of these basic entries may be missing from Wiktionary. Kappa has already helped to created the Korean ones, and I'll be looking for others to help in additional languages. Thanks for whatever help you can provide. --EncycloPetey 09:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added the months. The days of the week are already correct. --Patrik Stridvall 14:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Swedish on English Wiktionary[edit]

I have made a proposal on Wiktionary talk:Swedish inflection templates#Naming conventions and template layout that I think is somewhat along the lines of what we have been talking of elsewhere, but please correct me if I am wrong.

Wiktionary:Swedish Language is now found under Wiktionary:About Swedish (to follow the same naming convention as Wiktionary:About German) and I have started to flesh it out a bit. I was thinking that perhaps the talk page of that page could be a good place to discuss general concepts/problems related specifically to the presentation of Swedish words on English Wiktionary? --sanna 06:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

languages in Swedish[edit]

Hi, I was wondering, as a contributor to the Dutch Wiktionary, what gender do languages in Swedish have? common or neuter? (I ask this here because I can't find a Swedish contributor on the Dutch wiktionary) thx nl:Gebruiker:Levenius

I can only find a few languages which takes neuter gender, and that is Latin and any language which ends in -språk (such as pidginspråk = pidgin language). \Mike 09:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Frequency lists/Swedish[edit]

Could you translate the header at Wiktionary:Frequency lists/Swedish? --Anonymous editors 17:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Though I have absolutely no idea about the source of that list. \Mike 14:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser nominations[edit]

As of 31 August, 2006 the CheckUser status vote is beginning, you have been nominated and if you are so inclined please accept your nomination on the CheckUser page. Please also read the Meta Check User policy to be sure that the responsibilities are ones you would be interested in and willing to fulfill. Tentatively the end of the election will be one month from the beginning, but that is subject to change at any time, seeing as I just made that length up and a community consensus on duration will have to be established. Thank you and good luck! - TheDaveRoss 16:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but as mentioned over there, I'm not certain enough about the interpretation of the information. And as it seems to me, I think we'll get sufficiently many CU:s anyway. \Mike 14:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Dear \Mike,

Thank you for signaling your confidence in my ability to act as a CheckUser for the English Wiktionary. Your vote means a lot to me. I deeply appreciate it.

You may not be aware, but the Meta: policy dictates that there must be multiple CheckUsers on any given project, or else none will be granted. Each must get 25 votes on their local wiki, as per Meta: policy, to be granted the CheckUser privilege.

I'd like to take a moment to endorse my friends and co-runners. Each of them offers different skills that, as a whole, complement the needs of the English Wiktionary.

  1. User:Uncle G has been an English Wikipedia sysop longer than he's been an English Wiktionary sysop. This year (2006) he has refocused his efforts outside of Wiktionary. He was dragged away from Wiktionary while cleaning up the tens of thousands of entries on Wikipedia that linked incorrectly to Wiktionary after the case-sensitivity change in June 2005. He knows Wiktionary very well. And he is very competent at focusing his efforts wherever they are most needed. He operated the original Transwiki: bot, before we had the Special:Import feature we have now.
  2. User:Kipmaster is a French Wiktionnaire sysop and bot operator who is very technically capable. He also is in Europe, making his hours of availability complementary to his American counterparts. He is active in WiktionaryZ imports and understands very well which data can be imported here, from there. He normally acts as our primary liaison to fr.wiktionary, whenever compatibility issues arise.
  3. User:Jon Harald Søby is a steward. As a meta: steward, he is the primary person we call on to perform CheckUser checks now. His availability is often limited, but his Central European timezone proves to be very, very useful on occasion. He has contributed extensively to Wiktionary over the years.
  4. User:Kelly Martin was recently called in to help perform CheckUser checks on the English Wiktionary. She is currently up for election also for the Board of Trustees of Wikimedia Foundation. (In the unlikely event she wins that election, she will no longer be available to pursue her CheckUser nomination here.) Since she also has CheckUser privilege on other sister projects, she is accustomed to the 'can's and 'cannot's of CheckUser procedures, in detail.

I hope you can take a moment to consider these fine candidates again. Your support means a great deal to them, as well as to Wiktionary's ability to perform its own CheckUser checks in a timely manner.

Thank you again, for your support.

--Connel MacKenzie 06:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

200,000 Milestone[edit]

I'm sure it was आवश्यक from Dijan. I was watching. SemperBlotto 09:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Right when it happened? ok, I got around one article too late... :P Sorry. \Mike 10:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Nope, you were right the first time Mike - strip off was definitely 200,000. --Dolphinmiddlename 10:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Gah! Why did I even try to keep track? \Mike 10:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


Hiya Mike – can you advise on Talk:jag..? Widsith 16:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Which sense?[edit]

You asked the question in your RFC on prepustnica. A more suitable template is {{gloss}}, which lists the word in the language-specific cleanup categories. DAVilla 16:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, if I ever saw that one I'd forgotten about it, so I took the first one even remotely relevant :) \Mike 20:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Use of '#'[edit]

OK, I see how you've got around the formatting problem. Moglex 11:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice that we don't have to fight more over that :) \Mike 12:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You deleted my post[edit]

And for that you are in trouble. Just know I will be monitoring everything you submit and edit. :) have a good day —This unsigned comment was added by Cameronsessums (talkcontribs).

Yes I did. Have a good day to you too. \Mike 07:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done.[edit]

Thanks. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A certain vandalized page[edit]

This page is currently protected with the "no article text" template, which makes it show up in the search engines. However, the protected titles mechanism is now available for use, and I believe this page would fit perfectly under Wiktionary:Protected titles/Persistent protologisms. I therefore suggest that you deleted the current version of this page and apply the "protected titles" mechanism to it to prevent it from turning up in search engines. TML 00:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Nicely caught. Now it's gone. (To avoid search engines catching the term in question on this page instead, though, I've changed the displayed link a bit... ;) Which reminds me that one would need the ability to set a 'nofollow' on that protected pages-list... \Mike 11:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


On the 5th line of my userpage, I have more direct "random" links you can use to open in new tabs... --Connel MacKenzie 07:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, nice. Thanks! \Mike 07:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Possessive forms exclusion WT:VOTE rewritten and restarted[edit]

I have rewritten and restarted the vote, having attempted to reword the proposal to address the issues that people have raised. You may want to reread the proposal and reconsider your vote. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, but I stand by my earlier vote. \Mike 14:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Whilst that is obviously your right, I do ask why. Have your concerns not been addressed by the adoption of Rod’s suggestion that posessive forms be listed, unlinked, in the inflexion line? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know of Rod's suggestion. Mainly I retain my opinion because of:
  1. other languages in a similar situation: will they too have their possessive forms delinked in inflection tables and removed from articles? I know that it will not be a question of doing that right now, it is (finally) quite clear that this vote doesn't cover that area, but sometimes I see a slight tendency of trying to apply rules of English grammar elsewhere too.
  2. Pronunciation, and other information specific for the possessive.
Also, I realize that my opposition won't make any difference in the end, as the suggestion has been made much more palatable by the specification of "Modern English only", so I stand where I am as a reservation and statement that I would *not* want the practice to spread. :) \Mike 16:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Please nota bene that this is not a covert attempt to “apply rules of English grammar elsewhere” (well, not by me anyhow). Connel also questioned the loss of pronunciatory and other information lost in the deletion of possessive-form entries — as far as I can see, such information can be put in the base entry’s pronunciation, usage notes, or other §§. Even if you were never to change your vote, I’d still like to address any problems you have with the proposal if I have not done so already. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 17:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
No, as I pointed out, I'm aware of it being *only concerned with Modern English*. Am only trying to make sure the present vote will not be used as an excuse for any such attempt at any later time, either. But I understand I should point it out in my motivation too... \Mike 18:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


Hi, I noticed you've turned down a nomination for CheckUser before. I'd like to make a few new nominations. Would you happen to feel any differently about it now? DAVilla 11:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I will have to pass this year too. Hopefully things will have cooled down a bit by next autumn, so that I have a decent chance to learn how to use the tools properly. But right now I simply cannot take on that kind of responsibility, I'm afraid. \Mike 14:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

sv verb from templates[edit]

Coincidentally, I've just noticed that you've added a lot of sv-verb-form templates. As far as I'm aware these are not supposed to be language-specific, despite a large number of fi- form-of templates, which I've also only just now noticed. The language should be passed via a parameter. DAVilla 23:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can't say I have added, nor created "a lot" of sv-verb-form templates, though I updated their syntax a while ago (added anchors and whatnots). Mainly because {{past of}} as of today can't be used for Swedish as it specifies simple past tense and past participle (in Swedish those two forms very rarely coincide, not to mention that a lot of verbs don't even have a past participle - much of what the English past participle is doing, is in Swedish done by the supine tense) and there are a lot of those form-templates completely missing (imperative, supine, and obviously a specialized for the past tense). Neither does it allow me to specify whether the form is active (ok, that may be considered default), passive, relativereciprok (I think it was called that :) - I was wrong) or absolute voice. (Ok, now I'm overly picky, as the last three are identical - in spelling, not necesarily pronunciation - for virtually all words.) So in short, yes, I've seen that there's a lang= parameter in at least some "form of"-templates, but that doesn't always help.
Also, even diregarding all the finnish templates in that category, it's somewhat difficult to find the one you're looking for. Wouldn't it make more sense to group them by POS, using sorting keys? \Mike 11:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The Finnish templates are going to be turned into general use. There is no reason to have that may templates for each and every language. I'm also going to have them standardized with abbreviated names etc. I'm not sure that POS is an appropriate way to sort them, as different languages can have different labels for their parts of speech, but I will try it out.
When I get started on a demonstrable number, I will need to solicit your input again on how to handle all those funny grammatical terms. In particular, it might be a problem if something like "active" is assumed for Swedish. I'm wondering if there needs to be another layer to switch based on language.
I'm sorry about the anglo-centricity, as {{past of}} is an ire that I saw coming but haven't been able to convince anyone to correct. With this reform it should be pushed through. It's ridiculous to have that as an obstacle. DAVilla 14:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
First of all, the voice turned out to be called "reciprok", not "relativ" in Swedish, but I am not sure about the English term for it. Secondly, I think a reasonably full set1 of Swedish verb forms would be:
active These have only rarely different pronunciations, and even more rarely different spellings.
passive These two could probably be merged2 - if a good joint name can be found.
reciprok3 absolut3,11
active infinitive passive infinitive reciprok infinitive absolut infinitive
active present passive present reciprok present absolut present
active past4 passive past4 reciprok past4 absolut past4
active supine passive supine reciprok supine absolut supine
active imperative passive imperative5 reciprok imperative5 absolut imperative5
present participle
past participle6
present tense, subjunctive mood, active voice7 present tense, subjunctive mood, passive voice8(?)  ?10  ?10
past tense4, subjunctive mood, active voice 7 past tense4, subjunctive mood, passive voice 9  ?10  ?10
1 only the modern forms: then there once existed (up until mid 20:th century) also inflections by number and person (like in German or Spanish today). Further no forms constructed by auxiliary verbs (they should never have articles, now should they?). And as is seen - the present inflection table doesn't include anything but the active forms (not even the subjunctive mood). This is perhaps something that should be changed?
2 as I atm am unable to find any verb where they ever differ - but I'm not entirely convinced both forms formally exists for every verb. There are certainly verbs which lack them both, though.
3 I don't know the English terms for them (reciprocal and absolute??) - neither sv:wp nor en:wp mentions them at all in their respective articles on Swedish grammar, though reciprocals are mentioned on the en:wp talk. Personally, I can only refer to a discussion here (in Swedish.... :/).
4 We have so far mainly used "past tense" here, but wp prefers to call it preterite. This is also closer to the term we've been using on sv:wikt.
5 There's a long-going discussion on sv:wikt on whether imperative passive exists or not - problem is that its spelling always would coincide with present passive. We have, over there, not bothered to add the reciprok or absolut voices separately, so far. But I imagine the same discussion may start about existence of their imperatives. (My opinion is that the "absolute" and "reciprocal" imperatives certainly exists, and that passive imperative probably exists)
6 Note that this form may be considered as an adjective, with its own inflection table for gender and number. On sv we have so far solved that by considering this form as a headword (adjective) in its own right, and merely mentioned in the etymology that it is a participle of a certain verb. Present participle may also be considered as an adjective, but this form never inflects further.
7 With a very small number of exceptions: extremely rarely used in modern Swedish.
8 Is this ever used? Has it ever been used?
9 It happens that I use such forms, but I don't know what a grammarian would say about it as I only very rarely hear or see anyone else use this form, and I have never seen it commented - expert opinion needed....
10 I can't - personally - find any use of these forms, but I don't know if they are completely impossible...
11 As mentioned, I don't remember where I saw this name for the form. I guess that it would be logical to denote it "habitual", though.
And finally: I don't know if the proper denomination would be "active present (tense)" or "active voice, present tense" (I don't think one would need to write "active voice, indicative mood, present tense" as the subjunctive mood is so much of a rarely used special case). And I would need help from someone familiar with formal Swedish grammar! \Mike 17:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the third voice should be called reciprocal, it seems. \M
And when it comes to the fourth, I cannot even find it any longer in that discussion I thought I've seen it in - consequently, I no longer know where I saw that name. Take it with more than one grain of salt, then. \M
And another point: The term past participle is what I've been taught to use about this tense in English [and which en:wp uses]. In Swedish the term is perfektparticip (perfect participle) - I don't know if there is any particular reason as to why they seem to differ, and which should be considered more "correct". I just note this here as I see in [1] a mention about separating the past participle from the perfect participle. \Mike 17:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
And still another point: *if* we are to add the old verb forms from when Swedish verbs were inflected by person too (the last remnants of which disappeared from formal writing no more than maybe 60-70 years ago) there are additionally one form for singular, one for 1:st and 3:rd person plural, and one for 2:nd person plural. Each in the present and preterite (past) tenses. \Mike 10:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

(←) Updated, and rectified, the table... \Mike 01:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Added another footnote. \Mike 01:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

ELE L4 header sequence[edit]

Please enter your vote again; it was invalidated by improper edits by DAVilla. Tx, Robert Ullmann 23:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


According to Wiktionary history data, you have deleted the entry rehellisyys on April 23rd 2007. For your information, I'm going to rewrite it. It's a Finnish word and means ärlighet in Swedish. Hekaheka 14:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no problem. The former one was pure vandalism though, so there was nothing to save from that version :) And I usually don't keep track of which pages I've deleted nonsense from in the first place. \Mike 14:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Help with code?[edit]

I was wondering if you could help me with the template Template:Icelandic adjectival declension? I want the positive-, comparative- and superlative degree frame to stretch 100% to the left and right- no matter how short the word is. Then when that's done I'd also like it so that each time the word in question is too long, and it breaks the screen's boundaries I'd like the frames split up; e.g. that the Positive Degree Weak and the Positive Degree Strong would each be split up between lines, but that's not really the problem here; but I wouldn't hold it against you if you'd try helping out with that too. ;) --BiT 17:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The first part is not so difficult: a simple "width=100%" is needed every time a table is opened. The latter though... I may attempt one or two things tomorrow, on the lines of creating two different sub-tables - one for weak and one for strong inflection - and let them share a cell, only being separated by a space - that should, I believe, force them on top of each other when the browser window is too narrow for the content. But there are some table code to move around, and I fear I don't have the time for that task tonight. \Mike 17:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Template help?[edit]

Hejsan, jag vet inte om jag bör skriva på svenska eller engelska här, men jag skriver på svenska för det går snabbast. I alla fall så är du betydligt bättre på att fixa mallar, och om du har tid får du gärna ta en titt på template:sv-noun-reg-er m.fl. angående problem som uppstår här: croupier#Swedish. mvh/Natox 07:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Det spelar inte så stor roll vilket språk man skriver på här, tycker jag... väljer man att skriva på "fel" språk, är risken bara att det tar mig lång tid att tolka det ;)
När det gäller mallarna, så skulle de behöva göras om allihop - jag har börjat grunna på huruvida man skulle kunna klara sig med en enda (tveksamt...), i annat fall så fungerar sv.wikt:s mallar bra, och man skulle kunna kopiera in mycket därifrån för att få lite mer logiska namn. Och funktionalitet. Så jag kommer nog inte lappa ihop alla de nuvarande med en sådan här funktion, men just -reg-er-mallen är fixad. \Mike 17:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
(Jag har f.ö. uppdaterat min nya mall nu. Kommentarer är varmt välkomna!) \Mike 19:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Uh, exempel på användning finns f.ö. på diskussionssidan... \Mike 19:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Okej, tack, en mall alltså... hmm... kanske det går, jag har inte funderat så mycket på det, men jag är öppen för förslag. Men jag håller helt med om att de nuvarande mallarna måste göras om på ett sätt eller ett annat. Ska ta en titt på din föreslagna mall när jag har lite tid att tänka, dock inte nu. /Natox 23:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Jag tror det har kommit in en <br> eller någon annan form av radbrytning i -reg-er-mallen för alla sidor med den mallen har fått ett extra blanksteg mellan Noun och ordet. /Natox 11:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Ajdå. Ok, det är fixat. Tack för påpekandet. \Mike 16:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my mistake in paternal aunt[edit]

Eh, maternal, paternal, I can never keep these things straight. :-) Cheers, -- Visviva 10:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Äh, we all short-circuit once in a while :=) \Mike 10:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC) (And I got the spelling correct too? Good ;)
I thought it was too good to be true ;) \Mike 11:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


Hi Mike. The link on your user page to a danish dictionary is broken. You can find the official danish dictionary here: Lennart.larsen 09:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


Not sure what you did, but somehow you had extraneous characters after "==Swedish==". Since that messes up section editing, you might want to check whatever it is you did to create that. --Connel MacKenzie 19:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, as far as I can tell it was, by some reason (me slipping?), an ordinary white space - well, of course it shouldn't be there, but I'm also a bit surprised the parser is that sensitive to it, as it may be that hard to see. Well, it seems to be gone. \Mike 21:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


I've been going through various non-standard language names and this word came up. I cannot find a SIL entry for Old Swedish, and I was wondering if you might know what it is, or perhaps another name which Old Swedish is known by, or whatever thoughts you might have on the issue. Thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I realized that Old Norse just goes directly into Swedish, so I've switched the language to Old Norse. If you have any objections to this or any other thoughts on the matter, feel free to let me know. Otherwise, I apologize for wasting your time. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know much about these old forms of Swedish (or to which period the name "Ti" belongs - I have no idea if it was valid already in Old Norse), but I believe the various historical forms of Swedish should be marked somehow. But whether we should do that by a new set of language headers, well, I'm not sure, even though I think it could be a good idea, as at least Old Swedish differs quite a lot from the contemporary language (grammar, spelling...). In short, I have not knowledge enough to really deal with these old forms of Swedish, and I would need help by someone else.
And yes, I'm jealous of English, that it has ISO codes for both Old and Middle... (and Anglo-Norman) :) \Mike 12:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and "Swedish" is - historically - divided into the three periods: "Old Swedish" (~1225 to the mid 16th century), "New Swedish" (to early 20th century) and "Modern Swedish" (thereafter). These are not 'official' (afaict) as in "having ISO codes", but they seem to be 'official' as in "used in historical linguistics". [Years for these periods are taken from en:wp]. \M


Um, {{wlink}} ? Robert Ullmann 18:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, didn't know about it. Deleting... \Mike 18:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


Hi Mike, you made a typing error in this page and similar ones. Keene 20:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Swedish words needing attention[edit]

And it comes preloaded with a word! -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep an eye open! \Mike 06:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Btw, I'm currently working on the Swedish section of Wiktionary:Categorizing. If you have any interest in taking over, it's always better to have someone who knows the language, but if you don't care to, I'm happy to finish it off. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I saw you were working there (and almost finishing it off :o ) but I'll have a peek at them at some point anyway. Seems to be many words which lack inflection templates or have other problems... But I'm a bit short of time right now, and I don't really know when I'll be able to get down to it... \Mike 07:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


Hi Mike, I don't think we've talked before. Can you verify that Jultomte should be capitalised, please. Also, is this really the same as Father Christmas, because it seems to me that the Swedish Jultomte is more of an elf than an American big-bellied old-man Santa. Thanks --Jackofclubs 13:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say it is an elf (rather an elf-relative ;) who has taken on "Santa"-hood as a job - looking at the American Santa for inspiration but doing it in his own manner. Hard to say if he really is "the same" guy as Father Chrismas (what's the difference between Father Christmas and Santa, btw?), or what that even would mean... But no, it shouldn't be capitalized - it is now moved. \Mike 15:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
For me, Father Christmas and Santa are the same. --Jackofclubs 17:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I was not clear on whether your use of both terms indicated that they were somehow different. :) \Mike 18:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Lite frågor angående Svenska ord i Wiktionary[edit]

Hej! Jag är relativt nyinflyttad på Wiktionary efter att ha varit semi-aktiv på Wikipedia ett bra tag. Jag försöker fortfarande vänja mig vid allt detta nya, och har några frågor som jag hoppas att du, som mer erfaren Wiktionarist, kan svara på.

HymylyT@C 15:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC).

Hej, det var lägligt du visade dig, nu ska jag sätta dig i arbete!... Nej, skämt åsido så har jag ganska länge funderat på att arbeta om mycket av strukturen rörande de svenska mallarna, men det har inte blivit av att jag tagit tag i det, delvis på grund av tidsbrist, delvis på grund av att jag saknat någon att diskutera igenom saker och ting med.
  • Problemen som jag ser det är:
    • mallnamnen är röriga,
    • funktionen hos mallarna är inkonsekvent liksom parameternamn och defaultvärden,
    • dokumentationen är bristfällig (varför "Template:sv-noun-reg-er inte står med", gamla mallar som borde raderas beskrivs fortfarande, ingen lista över alternativa mallnamn),
    • former saknas (varför finns t.ex. inte passivumformerna av verben med?) eller är tveksamt beskrivna i mallarna (jfr. mallarna i stor med stor).
  • Botar finns ännu inga som arbetar med svenska ords böjningar, nej. Mest på grund av att jag inte kan särskilt mycket om bottar och botförarna inte vågat/velat ge sig på ett språk de inte vet så mycket om. Men som jag ser det så är det bara en tidsfråga till någon ger sig på att skapa en sådan bot.
  • livvakt och pluskvamperfekt ser rätt bra ut; jag har bara gjort ett par små förändringar.
  • Skillnader från wp... tja, jag har väldigt lite erfarenhet från en:wp, men vad som brukar nämnas är att skick och bruk mer sällan dokumenteras här - det utvecklas diverse vanor som "alla" följer/kopierar men som ingen orkar formulera, vi beskylls för att ha lite kortare tålamod med troll,... Nå, att titta på hur nya artiklar är formaterade brukar hjälpa långt. Och att se hur User:AutoFormat korrigerar befintliga artiklars struktur. Men å andra sidan så fixar just den boten de flesta fel man kan göra alternativt markerar konstigheter som den inte kan korrigera själv.
  • Angående svenska ord, och arbetet med de svenska mallarna så har jag en sida (som du kanske allaredan sett?) där jag spånar om vad jag tycker borde tas tag i... :D Sedan ska jag bara komma igång att göra det också! \Mike 16:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
OK. Jag kan heller inte mycket om botar, och skulle nog inte våga ge mig på att skriva en. Jag fick syn på din /About Swedish och /Swedish words efteråt, och tänker nog försöka beta av listan lite. sv: verkar ha en betydligt mer strukturerad samling mallar än en:, man kanske ska försöka efterlikna dem... Nåja, tack för din input. Jag ska se om jag kan göra lite nytta. God jul förresten. HymylyT@C 21:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Jo, det är mer tanke bakom de svenska mallarna inne på sv-wikt, men det finns vissa aspekter av dem som jag inte är helt nöjd med. Framförallt tycker jag nog att där används alldeles för många olika adjektivmallar; jag har arbetat vidare på den saken här under dagen idag och kommit fram till att man borde klara sig med fem olika mallar ([1]), inte 27 eller 28 eller vad sv nu använder. Jag är inte riktigt färdig med mallkonstruktionerna, även om jag har en bra bild för mig hur jag ska konstruera dem, men det stora jobbet blir ju ändå att uppdatera artiklarna... Så jag misstänker jag blir tvungen att lära mig köra botar :)
Och därtill så har jag, som kanske framgår av sidan du länkade, lite av en dröm att även få in de gamla pluralverbformerna i verbtabellerna :D Naturligtvis tydligt markerade såsom utdöda! Men det finns trots allt en hel del gammalt tryck kvar i omlopp som använder dem, så för att folk ska kunna använda wikt för att även få reda på vad gingo betyder, så...
Jag försöker f.ö. hålla User:Mike/notes uppdaterad med vad jag håller på med i fråga om de nya mallarna... \Mike 19:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


(;-) in this edit you are apparently having trouble with the template syntax. The problem is passing a string containing "=" as a positional (numbered) parameter. The parser thinks you are passing a parameter named "<span class" (!). Solution is to use the explicit parameter number:

{{infl|sv|adverb|comparative|4=<span class="form-of comparative-form-of">{{#switch:{{{2|}}} ...

so know it "knows" you are defining parameter 4. The catch is you have to use n= on all the positionals after that. (Else the next un-named parameter is also 4 ...) Robert Ullmann 15:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Robert! I had honestly not a clue how to get it to play nice with that template.. But I guess it's some kind of restriction in MW? \Mike 17:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


I've added support for acceleration of swedish adjectives. If you want to change the template names, feel free - and either update them in User:Conrad.Irwin/creation.js or let me know and I will. I'll have a go at the adverbs after some sleeping. Conrad.Irwin 02:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! The fun part was that once I tried it, I saw the neuter form turn green, but no other! And I simply couldn't understand why that one would start work but no of the others! Well, better late than never, I did come to think about a hard refresh :D Ok, now it works, thanks a lot! I'll return when I've done the other parts of speech too, but I guess that will take some time ;) \Mike 07:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Should now work for adverbs (post refresh ;). Geez do you make it hard by having your own language templates :p. Conrad.Irwin 00:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Christmas Competition[edit]

Your addition to Game 10 contains a mismatch that renders it invalid. The interposing word sould start with "ian-", not "iam-". --EncycloPetey 21:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Genetive typos[edit]

Hi Mike. Thanks for finding these typos. Regarding accelerated, there is as yet not support for these genitive forms, so that was not the reason. Genetiv is an old, deprecated spelling in Danish, but still I should have caught it. – Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 12:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Runaway pages[edit]

Thanks for fixing that, sorry about the mess. :-) -- Visviva 14:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Nah, no problems. \Mike 14:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Swedish pres. participles[edit]

Hi, since you're a native speaker of Swedish could you tell me why each verb has 2 present participle forms when there is only one form in every other "tense"? 50 Xylophone Players talk 23:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I fear the long explanation will have to wait until I have a few hours to dig a bit deeper into a few intricacies of the Swedish present participle, but the short explanation is: they are basically identical in meaning, if not absolutely necessarily in use: while the former is somewhat preferred in writing (in all kinds of circumstances) the second (the one with -s) is in some cases preferred (chiefly, but not exclusively, in speech) when used in adverbial position. The details would certainly benefit from a trained grammarian, though... And preferably someone who doesn't shrug it off with "Weeell, it's hard to pinpoint the actual difference"...
Before you ask: no, I do not know how we came to have both those two forms ...
And yes, the template would need to make this, and several other things, more clear... The templates are ATM missing the other voices, as well as the subjunctive (see above). Updating Swedish inflection templates and tables is a long term project of mine which at the moment is stalled due to RL issues. \Mike 21:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
One of the things which should be looked closer at is the treatment of Swedish participles in Wiktionary in general. The problem is that at least the past participles do not behave like a verb form in particularly many aspects (short of its etymology) - however it behaves more or less identically to the average adjective. And the present participles behave like either an adverb or an (uninflectable) adjective. They are IMHO much less verb-like than e.g. English participles. Which is why we on sv.wiktionary went to the extreme in the respect that we declared them as being adjectives. I know there are other dictionaries which treats them as adjectives and as a PoS of its own, respectively, and I would be surprised if no-one treated them like verb forms, but no example of such a dictionary springs to mind. Unfortunately, I am not knowledgeable enough about formal Swedish grammar to make a good case for either of the options.
Perhaps one could consider adding the necessary inflection forms into the verb template, but I think it would look pretty odd to have a section for adjectival inflections in a verb inflection template...
Also, one could imagine using two PoS:s - one for the participle, the verb form and one for the participle, the adjective - but then they would be identical short of the definition which in one case would say "past participle of..." and the second could have a formulaic definition "which has been <past participle of the English verb which is used as a translation of the original Swedish verb>". There would still be need for an inflection table in the "verb form" section. Yes, I did say that they are always treated as if they were adjectives. Inflects after number, gender and definiteness just as the adjectives does. In a few cases, even comparative and superlative forms, exactly as if it were an adjective. \Mike 21:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Anyway, based off what you've just told my I have some ideas for categorisation and such of these participles:
  1. Just like we have Category:Swedish past participles we should have Category:Swedish present participles. Also perhaps a separate category form the inflections of them.
I'm no stranger to such concepts either; French does similar things, e.g. il s'est assis (He sat down) but elles se sont assises (They[feminine] sat down). 50 Xylophone Players talk 00:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I saw you added two present participles as 'nouns'. That would IMO not be a good idea. The present participle could conceivably be considered an adjective, an adverb, a word of a PoS of its own ('participle') or a verb, but not a noun. However, there do (often) exist nouns of the same spelling as the present participle (just to confuse everyone) but that is used quite differently from the participle, and they should probably not be treated as such. I have - in vain - searched for a designation for such nouns, only to find that they 'shouldn't be confused with present participles of the same spelling' and that 'they are not gerunds'. But what they are instead, I do not know....
I have to think more about the issue of categorization. I have no ready answer yet. \Mike 22:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

mycket lite and väldigt lite[edit]

Your views at WT:RFD#mycket_lite would be most helpful.—msh210 17:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Discrete deletion[edit]

Hey Mike, it's probably worth blanking the deletion summary when it contains personal information (otherwise we end up with offensive mess in the deletion log). Conrad.Irwin 14:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought it did automatically, but I realized too late I was mistaken. :( \Mike 15:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

For helvede![edit]

Jeg så du har foretaget för helvete på svensk. Kommer du fra Sverige? Mike Halterman 22:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ja det gör jag :) \Mike 04:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


I've attempted to edit a Swedish entry for the first time - siames. I hope I copied everything correctly from sv:siames (I only understand the Swedish words, which are similar in English and German however!) --Volants 11:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you copied correctly, though the sv: entry suffered an error in the inflection table... :P (corrected that too). And also, the genders masculine and feminine have merged and are jointly referred to as "common" (c), so I changed that. \Mike 14:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

síndrome de inmunodeficiencia adquirida[edit]

I haven't been here at Wiktionary long enough to have a very accurate concept of what is to be done in certain situations, so I thought I would ask you about something. While looking at the English Wiktionary entry for 'SIDA', the Spanish abbreviation for AIDS, there is a broken link to síndrome de inmunodeficiencia adquirida. I would have added an entry for it, but then discovered upon clicking edit that you had deleted this entry in July of 2008. Your comment said that you removed the page because of "No usable content given." If this is a matter of someone simply adding the entry without a definition? In that case, I would be glad to add the term again. However, if you think it would be for some reason innapropriate to Wiktionary's goals to have that entry at all, I will remove the broken link, if that is the correct thing to do. Thanks. Mitchell Powell 15:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That was a case of someone writing the two words "save page". So since I don't speak Spanish myself, I simply removed the nonsense so that no one would believe, from the fact that links to the page had turned blue, that the abbreviation was defined. You are very welcome to add the entry :) \Mike 01:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. I've knocked up against a number of words of this sort. Is it possible to view somewhere the content of an entry that has been deleted? Mitchell Powell 21:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
No, not unless you're an admin. Though if there are no mentions on the talk page about any discussions about the deletion, I would say it's a fair bet to assume it to have been deleted due to vandalism. And what you can do, is to check if the logs contain a mention of the reason of the deletion. \Mike 20:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Right hand side Swedish templates[edit]

I'm in the process of making sure all the inflection tables are left-aligned so that they don't interfere with right-hand side TOCs. Usually this just means moving with AWB the inflection template underneath a new subheading (it's difficult when the same template produces an inflection line and a table). I've finished almost all of them except for the Swedish ones. I know you've been working on reorganizing the sv templates for a while so I thought I'd consult you. Any suggestions for a plan of attack? --Bequw¢τ 20:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"For a while"... Hey, I thought I was the one to come up with ridiculous understatements :)
As I see the situation at the moment:
  • Adverbs: I have removed the right-hand table from the template; I think that should be it... Should not need to be moved.
  • Adjectives: As far as I know, we have the following templates in active use:
    • sv-adj-reg: Should be possible to move by bot (or awb) to a =Declinations= section, as it doesn't make any inflection line. Then what remains is to edit the template to left-align it.
    • sv-adj-peri: As above.
    • sv-adj-abs: As above.
    • sv-adj-new: Now only inflection line (though as I removed the table, I realized it could use some serious editing. Well, not very relevant for the question at hand). Is to be renamed, see below.
    • sv-adj: redirects to sv-adj-reg. Would it be possible to use AWB to replace all those references with direct calls to sv-adj-reg, so that I then could rename sv-adj-new into this more sensible name?
    • (sv-adj-irr: Not used anymore.)
  • Nouns: The main reason why I wanted to rework the Swedish templates in the first place (but the toughest case, it seems). But: as far as I can tell, there shouldn't be anyone left which 1) is used in entries, and 2) specifies any inflection line. So I think you should be able to move them to a new subheading, all right. [I'm afraid further template-replacements (as in my ideas for template replacements) will require the eye of native to get the parameters right. But simply moving the template within the page shouldn't be a problem.] Btw, do you get to see a list of templates encountered? If so, I could be more certain that I move them all to the left afterward, because I don't think the categories and lists of templates are complete.
  • Verb:
    • sv-verb-reg, sv-verb-irr and (if present; it shouldn't be) sv-verb-custom are inflection line *only* and shouldn't be moved.
    • sv-verb-reg-ar, sv-verb-reg-er, sv-verb-irreg: should all be safe to move to a new header and transferred to the left.
I think that should be it. Further work will, I'm afraid, wait until I have some more inspiration/motivation (and time) to actually finish off the template modifications, but even then the larger part of the work will be to manually update the entries... Oh, and possibly there could be some hard-coded tables left, but if so, they are already under their own headings. Still, it'd be nice to get to know about them, so that I can replace them. If you happen to see them, that is. \Mike 00:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I've moved all the {{sv-adj}} to {{sv-adj-reg}} so you should be able to move {{sv-adj-new}} in there. I'm using list of all templates that have some sort of right-alignment specific (e.g. "float:right;"), so it doesn't matter if the categories are incomplete. I'll note any oddities as I come across them. Thanks for the helpful picture. --Bequw¢τ 03:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Here are the sv templates I'm looking at:
  1. Template:sv-adj-pastpart
  2. Template:sv-adj-peri
  3. Template:sv-adj-prepart
  4. Template:sv-adj-reg
  5. Template:sv-adv
  6. Template:sv-noun
  7. Template:sv-noun-c-zero
  8. Template:sv-noun-irreg-c
  9. Template:sv-noun-irreg-n
  10. Template:sv-noun-n-zero
  11. Template:sv-noun-nolink
  12. Template:sv-noun-pl-irreg
  13. Template:sv-noun-reg-ar
  14. Template:sv-noun-reg-er
  15. Template:sv-noun-reg-n
  16. Template:sv-noun-reg-or
  17. Template:sv-noun-reg-r-c
  18. Template:sv-noun-reg-r-n
  19. Template:sv-noun-unc-irreg-c
  20. Template:sv-noun-unc-irreg-n
  21. Template:sv-verb
  22. Template:sv-verb-irreg
  23. Template:sv-verb-reg-ar
  24. Template:sv-verb-reg-er
  25. Template:sv-adj-irreg

--Bequw¢τ 03:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

As of these, I have removed anything right-floating from {{sv-adv}} and {{sv-adj-irreg}} (and removed all uses of the latter), and the other should be safe to move. So I say: move at will.
Btw, I guess I should learn to use AWB at some point... but would you mind helping me transferring also the uses of {{sv-adj-new}} to {{sv-adj}}? I move the templates the way they are supposed to, by now. Either way, thanks for the help! \Mike 12:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
NP, took only a few minutes. Cheers. --Bequw¢τ 14:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


I do not want to come across as contumelious but please consider casting your vote for the tile logo as—besides using English—the book logo has a clear directionality of horizontal left-to-right, starkly contrasting with Arabic and Chinese, two of the six official UN languages. As such, the tile logo is the only translingual choice left and it was also elected in m:Wiktionary/logo/archive-vote-4. Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran Speak your mind my past 02:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

My eyesight, though good enough for most things, is not enough to see what language is used in that book, nor whether it's a RTL or LTR language used. Perhaps a detailed study would reveal a perceived bias, but to me, a logo is more about impressions than detailed investigations. And as I would vote for more or less *anything* to get rid of the tile logo... There was one single (or were there two such?) proposals which was offensive enough to make me dislike them more than the tile logo - so no, there's no way I'd change my vote. \Mike 19:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Adjektiv med flera komparationsformer[edit]

Hej! Vissa adjektiv har som bekant flera möjliga komparationsformer, t.ex. nära. Jag lade till närmre och närmst häromsistens, men jag lyckas inte få dem till separata länkar, som du ser på sidan för nära. Vet du hur man ska hantera sådant? HannesP 15:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Det hade jag glömt att skriva instruktioner för, tack för påminnelsen. Så, nu är både instruktioner och uppslag uppdaterade. \Mike 21:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Schysst! HannesP 12:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/2010-04/Voting policy[edit]

I urge you to vote. (I don't know which way you'll vote, but I want more voices, especially English Wiktionarians' voices, heard in this vote.) If you've voted already, or stated that you won't, and I missed it, I apologize.​—msh210 17:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Svensk samling[edit]

Som jag nämnde på sv:WP:BB så tror jag det behövs en samlad ansats för svenska ord inom engelska Wiktionary. Finns det någon bra samlingspunkt för svenskar som kommer hit? Är det Wiktionary talk:About Swedish, eller kanske här på din användardiskussion? Kanske borde man samla norrmän och danskar till ett gemensamt projekt?

Jag skrev lite om stavningsreformer på Wiktionary:About Swedish#Obsolete spelling och sedan skapade jag danska pluralverbet ere som inte hade någon artikel. Jag skulle vilja ange när ett ord blev obsolet, så att man kan skilja på "elf" (före 1889) och "älf" (1889-1906). Borde dessa former listas under uppslaget älv, vid sidan av böjningsformer? Vi har ju faktiskt elfven, elfvar, älfven, älfvar, älven, älvar. Det kan bli många former. Ska älfven/älfvar listas som böjningsformer under älf eller ska allt samlas under älv? Jag försökte genomföra det förra på sv.wikt, men jag börjar tycka att det senare kanske vore lämpligare. Någon hade markerat svenska konjunktiv som obsoleta, men det hölle jag med om det skulle jag förneka mitt eget språkbruk. Ovanlig kan jag gå med på, men inte obsolet. --LA2 15:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Angående konjunktiven så kunde jag inte hålla med mer - hade bara de svaga verbens konjunktivformer varit skilda från indikativen hade nog fler sett att konstruktionen inte är riktigt så ovanlig!
About Swedish är ju tänkt som samlingspunkten, men jag har inte sett så mycket aktivitet där. Och i vissa avseenden har jag en känsla av att den inte är helt uppdaterad. För att någon gång i framtiden råda bot på det startade jag User:Mike/About Swedish - men tyvärr inehåller den mer frågor än svar, delvis på grund av att jag känner att jag inte har kunskap nog att besvara dem.
När det gäller den specifika frågan: har du något speciellt argument till varför det vore lämpligare med "älfen" under "älv"? Jag vill inte påstå att jag själv har någon uppfattning åt någondera hållet ännu, utan är bara nyfiken. \Mike 13:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Argumentet är att man skapar överblick genom att koncentrera all information till ett ställe. Man kan då ta upp dialektala variationer, detaljer i etymologi och användning, som överlever stavningsreformerna, och riskerar inte att sådant sprids på de olika artiklarna om elf och älf.
Jag såg nu på Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Open bot request att man ville reformera mallarna för svenska böjningsmönster. Dessa bruna mallar liknar ju dem på sv.wikt, medan alla andra på en.wikt verkar vara blå och utfällbara. Detta får mig att fundera på om man också borde ändra deras parametrar och logik. Vem har tänkt ut dem från början, och är den logiska konstruktionen bra som den är eller i behov av reform? --LA2 13:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Jag började på dem, kopierande färger från de dåvarande mallarna för något av de romanska språken, minns ej vilket. Försökte få input på om det var ok att lägga dem till höger, men fick aldrig några kommentarer. Nå, fint, definitionerna går sällan så långt till höger, så då kan man väl använda det utrymmet? Patrik Stridvall skapade resten, eventuellt med ytterligare hjälp, men med en i mitt tycke mycket egendomlig logik för parameternamn och inre struktur, så ja, jag anser att de behöver arbetas om. Efter någon tid irriterade jag mig kraftigt på färgen (den visade sig bli ganska skrikig) och bytte dem alla till den färg som använts på sv. (Mallen jag utgått ifrån hade redan bytt färg, om det var till den blå färg som nu blivit de facto standard minns jag inte). När jag haft tid och orkat bry mig, så har jag försökt hitta ett system för att bygga om mallarna så att de 1) inte flyter till höger, 2) är konsistenta i fråga om parameternamn, 3) inte kräver alltför många parametrar för "normala" ord (det finns emm ingen anledning att kräva 7 parametrar eller vad det nu kan behövas för ett verb som "hoppa" när samtliga böjningar är så lätt härledda med mallogik). Och så önskas tydligen två parallella system: en inflection-line som ger de grundläggande böjningarna under ordklassrubriken (jfr Template:sv-adj eller Template:sv-verb-reg), och vid behov en mer fullständig "conjugation-"/"declensiontable" under en egen rubrik - de nuvarande mallarna ligger närmare den senare typen. Själv har jag ägnat mer tid åt "inflection line"-mallar än de fullständiga, delvis för att jag inte vetat hur jag skulle göra med till exempel pluralverb - ska de föras in i samma mallstruktur? Vilka former skall då in? Konjunktiv och pluralformer (när försvann förresten 2:a person plural presens som egen form?), ok, men hur är det med passivum? Finns det/har det ens funnits en passiv form i konjunktiv? Jag antar du sett kladdtabellen längre upp på den här sidan...
Fler kladdsidor jag har använt mig av när jag grubblat på mallar: User:Mike/notes, User:Mike/sv-noun (inkl. diskussionssidan)
Och jo, att samla information kan vara överskådligt, men det kan också vara överväldigande om det inte görs på ett bra sätt. \Mike 18:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Jag har gjort om alla mallar med böjningstabeller för substantiv och verb, så att de nya blå färgerna enbart finns i {{sv-decl-noun}} och {{sv-verb-irreg}}, och övriga mallar anropar någon av dessa. Den senare borde kanske döpas om till sv-conj, för att följa mönstret.

Återstår adjektiven, där jag funderar på om man kan göra en generell basmall utav {{sv-adj-reg}}. Den borde i så fall heta sv-decl-adj. I detta sammanhang, stöter jag på {{sv-adj-decl}}. Vad är det? Den används ingenstans, men är rätt så ny och har nästan rätt namn. --LA2 11:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Tanken med den var att hitta en metod där användaren bara skulle behöva en mall, oavsett om det rörde sig om okomparerbara, perifrastiska eller "normala" adjektiv, genom att använda något av alternativen {{sv-adj-decl|grön}} {{sv-adj-decl|type=peri|grön}} {{sv-adj-decl|type=abs|grön}} för att få fram
Inflections of grön

Compared by mer and mest.

Common grön
Neuter grönt
Masc. gröne
All gröna
Plural gröna
Inflections of grön

Not comparable

Common grön
Neuter grönt
Masc. gröne
All gröna
Plural gröna
Men som synes så kom jag inte så långt med att börja använda mallen, eller att se till att den verkligen är "färdig" och täcker alla möjligheter.
Du har rätt i att den inte borde ha det namnet, ja.
Jag föredrar upplägget på tabellen i -adj-decl-mallen framför -adj-reg, eftersom den senare får det att se ut som att attributiv och predikativ är två begrepp som bara gäller superlativen. \Mike 15:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Men så bra, då är ju halva jobbet gjort. Bara att byta färg och namn och anpassa de övriga mallarna till att anropa denna. --LA2 15:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Eller så är det inte så enkelt, för att tabellkoden ligger nere i sv-adj-small och sv-adj-irreg, medan en hel del span-taggar m.m. ligger i den sv-adj-decl, som jag nu döpt om till {{sv-decl-adj}}. Borde de här span-taggarna även införas i {{sv-decl-noun}}? --LA2 16:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Ja, det är bra om de mallarna får motsvarande taggar. När det gäller adjektiven fick jag hjälp av User:Conrad.Irwin med dem, men det var innan jag började arbeta om mallen - och efteråt har jag inte riktigt fått den "finessen" (User talk:Conrad.Irwin/creation.js) att fungera; jag vet inte vari problemet ligger. Bör kanske span-taggarna flyttas ned till -small och -irreg? \Mike 16:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Jag ska fundera lite på detta. Det är ju ingen brådska. Verb+substantiv är 4800 stycken, medan adjektiv bara är cirka 500 totalt. Vad händer exempelvis med taggarna om man vill stoppa in två ord i någon av rutorna, som sade/sa i säga (båda medskickade som parameter) eller som akademin/akademien i akademi (skapade av mallen, genom styrparametern ien=yes)? --LA2 17:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Det är en bra fråga. Jag vet inte hur man ska lösa det, eller om det ens är ett problem. Alternativet är väl att säga att de undantags-böjningsformerna måste läggas in helt manuellt, utan hjälp av "finessen". Inte optimalt, men kanske ett för litet problem för att det ska motivera att komplicera upp mallarna än mer. \Mike 05:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Take a look now at {{sv-conj-wk}}, that CodeCat made today. It looks good, not only in a clean design, but also in easy-to-use parameters. Should we start to deploy it, phasing out sv-verb-reg-er and -ar? --LA2 16:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the verb templates, I have a few comments:
  1. In the case of "känna": the imperative should be "känn" instead of "kän", and the present passive should be "känns" instead of "käns".
  2. There are quite a few verbs without past participle (such as "heta" and "ryka") - should we use the template for irregular verbs for these, or does it motivate an extra parameter?
  3. As you have looked into older Swedish a bit: Do you know if passive imperative exists or has existed? It's hard to search for it, as it obviously would coincide in spelling with infinitive or present tense...
  4. The parameter "noa=1" makes me wary: The verbs on -s (like andas) which *looks like* passive verbs without active form, are grammatically actually active, and not passive. So this parameter would need, I believe, to transfer the -s-forms of the verb into the active column. (And I don't know any of those verbs that actually have a past participle). Or do you have any other construction in mind that I'm overlooking? Could very well be the case, of course!
\Mike 20:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Regarding item 2: Could the parameter nop=1 (passive not applicable) be used to switch off the pastpart? I assume heta and ryka would have nop=1. But does nop=1 and no pastpart always coincide? --LA2 20:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
No, they don't always coincide. See e.g. sv:anlända#Swedish.
Another question that I occasionally ponder (and I'm not certain sv:wikt has got this right) is how to deal with passive forms of intransitive verbs. As far as I understand, they "should" not exist, but then again, I hear expressions such as "Nu ska det ut och festas". Common for these expressions, as far as I can tell, is that they only occur with the pronoun "det", as were they impersonal verbs. (Should that be remarked upon somewhere? If so, where? Is this even a standard construction that wiktionary should recognize?) But then I don't know if I've ever seen the past participle on it's own. \Mike 07:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Another "det + passive" is vanka. Is that two different conjugations, one active-only (walk) and another passive-only (expect)? The pastpart should not be there. (I've never heard "maten var vankad".) --LA2 09:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Jag tog upp en diskussion på sv:Wiktionary:Bybrunnen#Adjektivens genitiv, nämligen de böjdas och gjorde ett utkast till ny adjektivmall på User:LA2/base. --LA2 17:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ett verb[edit]

Har du lust att bidra med synpunkter i raderingsdiskussionen om verbformen göro, tack? --LA2 16:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Please. It's at [[WT:RFD#g.C3.B6ro]].​—msh210 (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks.​—msh210 (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ett verb till: En av dina definitioner av bona#Swedish (från 2005) kände jag inte igen, utan flyttade till dona#Swedish. --LA2 16:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Svåra fall[edit]

Här är några svåra fall som kan behöva städas upp, men som jag inte klarar av. --LA2 19:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Bläh, tabellen för "orange" (likaså "beige#Swedish") vill jag nog inte ta i med tång, ens. Är det substantivet "torr" du undrar över? Adjektivet är fullständigt regelbundet; andledningen till den hårdkodade tabellen under adjektivet är att uppslaget uppenbarligen aldrig uppdaterades när systemet med mallar infördes. \Mike 09:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Jag har jagat tabellkod i svenska uppslag och tror jag har fixat alla utom dessa två. Bra att du fixade torr. Jag föreslår att vi grundar föreningen för en återgång till färgnamnet brandgul. --LA2 11:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Rättelse: Jag har följt Category:Swedish nouns och verbs och fixat tabellkod. Men just brandgult hade förstås ingen kategori alls och sådana ställen har jag missat. Föreningen eller åtminstone ett upprop finns redan på De olika färgerna har också fått en rubrik som Noun, vilket jag är skeptisk till. I meningarna "jag gillar gult" eller "ta lite mer gult" så är det ju inte "gul" som är ett substantiv, snarare handlar det väl om ett adjektiv följt av ett utelämnat substantiv (lite mer gult färgämne, eller så) eller kan det röra sig om ett slags adverb? Jag skulle vilja se exempelmeningar innan jag övertygas om att färger är substantiv. --LA2 11:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Jag hoppades, när jag tittade i historiken, att det skulle visa sig att det åtminstone inte var jag som hade lagt in den. Jag vet inte vad jag ska säga - idag jag håller med dig. Jag undrar om någon började lägga in "färgsubstantiv" och jag fortsatte under förespeglingen att de visste vad de gjorde?
Nå, jag tror väl att i meningen "Jag gillar gult" så är "gult" objekt, så jag har svårt att se hur det skulle kunna vara ett adverb. \Mike 14:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
"Gul är en vacker färg" kanske visar på att gul kan vara ett substantiv. Men jag är bara amatör och skulle villa se en källhänvisning rörande detta. --LA2 14:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Proper noun genitives[edit]

There doesn't seem to be a single proper noun genitive in en.wiktionary: Sveriges, Danmarks, Norges, Finlands, Annas, Bengts, Cederqvists. How come? Is there a recommendation or guideline against this? --LA2 18:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a resolution against such forms (well, possessives in general1) in English, but the case of Swedish has never been discussed, to my knowledge. Personally, I never got around to do very much with neither names nor inflections in general. And based on what you looked at, it seems that the intersection of those two sets happens to be empty. But no, that is not deliberate.
One could also look at Wiktionary:Statistics which indicates that there are in the order of 800-900 (properly formatted) entries for Swedish inflections. Compare this to 10000+ entries, and I'm not surprised there are vast omissions amongst the inflections. \Mike 08:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
1Someone claimed the Swedish forms too "are" possessives rather than genitives, and went on to modify all templates accordingly. Me, I have no idea which is the more 'correct'.
I've now started to create these. They fall into category:Swedish proper noun forms. --LA2 10:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


Hi Mike,

Can you think of a Swedish word that might be involved here? (I'm not sure there is one, I just have a hunch that there might be.)

Thanks in advance!
RuakhTALK 23:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I took the liberty to fill in. SAOB has seponera. --LA2 06:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Partikelverb och objektsprepositioner[edit]

Hej! Jag vänder mig till dig eftersom du är lite av en huvudgestalt här på wiktionary när det gäller svenska ord. En stor brist, som jag förmodar att du är väl medveten om, är att det inte finns något etablerat system för partikelverb och objektsprepositioner, två besläktade fenomen. Det jag pratar om är alltså:

  • Han tänker henne och hon pratar om honom. - både tänka och prata är transitiva verb, men de behöver en oförutsägbar och i allmänhet obetonad preposition framför objektet.
  • Hon sade till honom att lägga av. - ett betonat ord, ofta adverb eller preposition, efter verbet ändrar dess mening helt eller delvis.

Jag är av den bestämda åsikten att det behövs ett vedertaget system för att hantera dessa två fenomen. Jag är inte helt säker på hur ett sådant skulle se ut, men jag har lite idéer. Vad tycker du? ✎ HannesP · talk 17:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Jag håller med och är nyfiken på vilka idéer du har. Som jag förstått systemet på sv är att använda egna uppslag om partikeln är betonad men en tagg ("context"-tagg här, då) under huvudverbet om betoningen ligger på verbet. Jag vet dock inte om den praxisen är vare sig oantastlig eller ens konsekvent upprätthållen där (point in case: gå på, där jag inte ser varför uttal 2 inte finns under ""). Ett av problemen med att göra en skillnad på de fallen verkar vara oenighet om var betoningen ligger i vissa konstruktioner (åter: "gå på"). Hur skulle du vilja förbättra systemet? :) \Mike 18:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I november 2010 lade jag in en lista över partikelverb, Appendix:Swedish phrasal verbs, om nu det är till någon hjälp i diskussionen. --LA2 03:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:wrongtitle usage[edit]

Hello. I've noticed that you created a handful of Swedish abbreviations with {{wrongtitle}} (e.g. S ta). After you made these, a handful of similar title-challenging entries were consolidated at Appendix:Unsupported titles. Do you think it would be good to migrate the Swedish pages to this section? Pros: consolidation, you can employ {{unsupported}}, and JS rewriting to correct page title (look at the L1 header vs URL at Colon hyphen right paren). Cons: not in main namespace, other potential issues. Thoughts? --Bequw τ 01:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Continued at WT:RFM#S ta. --Bequw τ 15:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Kallar på förstärkning[edit]

Det diskuteras inte så mycket på Wikibooks, vilket jag tycker är skönt efter att ha fått hjärnan genomsköld av nonsenssnack på Wikipedia. Men just nu behövs det åsikter för att kunna formulera en policy, så titta gärna in på Bybrunnen och säg din åsikt om du vill! -- Lavallen (talk) 10:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

"Derived terms" section re adjective "wise"[edit]

   I was pleased to discover that most of the links from wise#Derived terms were added by a long-term and high-volume contributor. I had feared that the links to wiseacre and wizen had been added in good faith by someone hard to reach, and plausibly even less well informed than myself about the intent of Wiktionary:MoS#Derived terms. (Consulting w:Morphology (linguistics) may have been an appropriate attempt at remedying my linguistics ignorance, but the attention i was willing to devote to it was insufficient to settling the questions i have.)
   Based on my own experience with dictionaries, i expected "Derived terms" for the adjective "wise" to list only terms that came into use in modern English via the modern-English adjective wise, as opposed to having an etymological ancestor in common with that adjective, and as opposed to sounding like or being subject to confusion with the adjective.
   In the case of "wiseacre", we say we have a word that entered English or Old English via a form of Dutch, arising from wijs and not via Old-English wīs: Yes, "wise" and "wiseacre" are cognates; yes, wijs and wīs seem to have represented meanings too close to identical to quibble about; but no, the relationship between "wise" and "wiseacre" does not amount to either one arising (or deriving) from the other.
   In the other case, "wizen", is not even a cognate of "wise", and tho both are associated with the elderly, the verb to wizen is about acquiring or causing wrinkles rather than wisdom. (My 1960s Merriam-Webster International (unabridged) lists two differently pronounced words "wisen", regarded as dialect, that have the sense of "become wise" and/or "make wise", and i was surprised not that they are recognized, but only that they are recognized only as dialect: i think that one of those meanings would be inferred in appropriate contexts by native speakers who heard them used -- tho i don't remember ever hearing or reading either one.)
   So, i may be misunderstanding the intended function of "Derived terms" entries (in which case IMO the MoS needs to offer clarifying examples instead of appealing to specialist terms), but barring that, i am sure these two words should not be on the list we are discussing. In any case, thanks for your attention.
--Jerzyt 05:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

While what I read above seems reasonable, I'm a little bit confounded as to how I come into the picture, because I can only find one edit of mine on that page, namely in september 2004 when I added some Swedish translations.
I will look into this in a few days time. \Mike (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"Ge vatten" som översättning för "urinate"[edit]

Hej Mike!

Jag grunnar lite på denna översättning som du lade till en gång för snart sju år sedan (:o). Jag får erkänna att jag inte kan komma ihåg att jag har hört eller sett detta uttryck för att urinera. Jag skulle snarare bruka "kasta vatten". Är det dialektalt på något sätt, eller är det bara jag som är "ignorant"? Med vänliga hälsningar Diupwijk (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Väldigt bra fråga. Jag kan inte se det på annat vis än att jag måste ha drabbats av hjärnsläpp där. Korrigerar! (Och tack för att du upptäckte det) \Mike (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, bra att det reddes ut! Ha det fint. Diupwijk (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Hm, jag undrar om jag egentligen avsåg att lägga den betydelsen som ett alternativ till "vattna"... \Mike (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


The latest Special:Uncategorizedpages has more than 100 entries that are Swedish, at least some of which have only your name associated with them. I suspect that they have appeared there because of changes in the way the system of context labels 'works'. You might consult CodeCat on that. DCDuring TALK 12:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

There seems to have been changes in {{sv-adj}} and {{sv-adv}} which meant that Swedish adjectives and adverbs were no longer automatically categorized, which I believe used to be the case. Those two templates are updated, and by checking a sample of the uncategorized pages listed in the special page it now seems as the Swedish entries there should be corrected. As far as I can see, all the entries - that were Swedish - were indeed adjectives or adverbs.
If this is not a satisfactory solution to the problem, I'll take a new look. \Mike (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I include Special:Uncategorizedpages in what I look at. It seems to get updated about twice a week, with a lag from the actual state of the wiki, working from a dump or snapshot I suppose. So I'll let you know if the problem hasn't gone away in a week. DCDuring TALK 17:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. \Mike (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Templates en stijlvoorschriften onmiddellijk boven paragrafen op editpagina voor gebruiksgemak?[edit]

Hallo Mike, Soms voeg ik kleine stukjes informatie toe aan wanneer ik een (spel)fout of vergissing zie, of wanneer ik bv. een Nederlands woord weet dat etymologisch samenhangt met wat ik lees. Ik weet dat er hele webpagina's bestaan met uitleg over templates en dergelijke. Maar voor iemand als ik die slechts soms een klein beetje informatie toevoegt (maar op veel verschillende plaatsen) is het moeilijk om eerst alle relevante informatie te lezen.

Ik stel voor om de templates en stijlvoorschriften op de editpagina's onmiddellijk boven de paragrafen te schrijven, en dan alleen die voorschriften en templates die daar relevant zijn. Op die manier kan een incidentele auteur gemakkelijk iets toevoegen en toch de stijlvoorschriften opvolgen.

Ik denk dat dat de kwaliteit van Wiktionary (en Wikipedia) ten goede komt.

Je mag me antwoorden in het Zweeds, Deens, Duits, Nederlands, Frans, Portugees, en Engels. Waarschijnlijk kan ik een bericht in het Spaans of Italiaans ook begrijpen. Alvast bedankt!Redav (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)